Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Susan Wojcicki has died

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 523 posts

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#411

Post by Kye »

takinola wrote: post #389
kylec wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was also an era where bandwidth to serve content was extremely expensive, I still don't know how 2005 YouTube was able to find a way to make serving user-uploaded videos for free financially viable, but that was a HUGE component of their success.

I think the secret was being acquired by Google. Without the deep financial pockets and strategic patience of Google, I doubt they would have been able to become what they are today.

How YouTube would pay for itself was one of those top topics back in that thin slice of time between when YouTube took off and Google bought it.

The Techmeme page from the day of the announcement (October 9, 2006) if you want to dig into it: https://www.techmeme.com/061009/h2355

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#412

Post by cpncrunch »

melling wrote: post #293
cpncrunch wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251

This seems key: “ Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health.” Thanks for the link. Now we know with certainty that lack of sunlight wasn’t a cause.

I think you have misinterpreted that sentence. It is saying that too little sun exposure is harmful to health in women. See also this study which found the same for men in Norway:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01695...

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#413

Post by -mlv »

ethbr1 wrote: post #237
ghaff wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a fairly casual observer like myself, YouTube early on looked like mostly a platform for massive video copyright infringement--especially before home video became so relatively cheap and easy. I don't use it nearly as much as some here but it definitely transformed into something much different for the most part and managed to make it work as a business (at least as part of Google).

Younger folks forget that YouTube launched (2005) a few years before both the iPhone launched and Netflix pivoted to streaming (2007). In that weird era, (a) average home Internet connections became fast enough to support streaming video (with a healthy adoption growth rate), (b) the most widely deployed home recording device was likely still the VCR (digitizing analog video from cable to burn to DVD was a pain), (c)…

Even cheap digital cameras back then could record video + audio.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#414

Post by sulam »

talldayo wrote: post #378
sulam wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I pick up trash off the floor that I didn’t put there? Why do I tip for good service? Why do I bother responding to posts like this? The answer is the same to all these questions: because I’d rather not live in a world where everyone is a taker.

You're not picking up trash. You're paying for trash and encouraging the ad-littering business by even acknowledging it exists. If you consider advertising bad enough to pay money to get rid of it, why would you pay that money to the business putting up ads? Because you refuse to leave their client? Because you don't want to acknowledge the scary world of choosing something better? I see a lot of people say this, whe…

First of all we are talking about YouTube here, not Google as a whole. Secondly, my argument is simple and basic physics. If everyone behaved like you, YouTube and services like it would not exist. Your straw man arguments aren’t needed for me to justify my decisions.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#415

Post by [deleted] »

fragmede wrote: post #401
cnasc wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not looking at an advertisement is not “being a leech.” I glance away from billboards, I refill my drink during commercial breaks, I show up when the movie starts instead of when the preview starts. These are normal behaviors, not leech behaviors. The ads are not very sophisticated, so I don’t need sophisticated measures to avoid them. On the web, the ads have ratcheted up the intensity (tracking, targeting) with tec…

That's a false dichotomy. Rationalize not paying for content with whatever logical contortions you can come up with, leeching content and not paying for it clearly isn't going to encourage the creation of additional content. Pay for it via Patreon or some other platform if you don't want to give money to Google, but the leech problem is why so many things suck. Even BitTorrent sites hate leeches.

[deleted]

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#416

Post by throwaway32654 »

Jensson wrote: post #254
Physkal wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just use an ad blocker?

Why not pay for a product you use instead of being a leech? It is perfectly fine if you wanna leech, but understand not everyone wanna do that.

You already pay for YouTube with your data.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#417

Post by polotics »

meiraleal wrote: post #155
daveed wrote: post #49

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

You know that Google has an intranet, right? The CEO of a division that extracts rent from almost every living person doesn't deserve more respect than a homeless person in SF

On a 1-10 scale of nefariousness, I would classify Youtube as pretty low, it's a manageable addiction and with a little bit of self control the videos you watch will be worthwhile. I am a subscriber. Then there is Youtube Kids, and whoever worked on that deserves a 9, and good bye.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#418

Post by throwaway32654 »

kbolino wrote: post #335
pavlov wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube’s algorithm feeds increasingly radicalizing content to young people. It makes celebrities of people like Andrew Tate and is a primary enabler of fringe belief bubbles. Any time someone posts a YouTube link to a political discussion, it’s guaranteed to be the worst nonsense that pries on people who “do their own research.” (No matter if they’re left or right on the political spectrum, there’s endless junk on Y…

As targeted towards young people, YouTube's algorithm serves up a lot more Mr. Beast than Andrew Tate.

Considering the recent controversies, YouTube's algorithm recommending Mr. Beast to young people is no less of a problem.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#419

Post by talldayo »

kubectl_h wrote: post #395
talldayo wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I'm even considering getting YouTube Premium Why? Serious question, too. You can sideload clients that give you every single feature of YouTube Premium for free. Unless you're expressly lazy, like being taken advantage of or enjoy watching advertisements, there's really no excuse. YouTube Premium is the "I'm trapped in this place and you people have finally gotten me" fee - you can circument it all together by…

> I run SmartTube on my dirt-cheap Amazon FireTV and don't get a single ad when browsing. Subtotal is $0.00 for the installation and usage of Open Source software. I have YT Premium and it works perfectly on every device I have and I have never had to configure anything nor research anything to not see an ad. I only vaguely understand some of the phrases or words you are using (have no clue what a newpipe is, but kin…

[flagged]

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#420

Post by talldayo »

least wrote: post #409
talldayo wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not picking up trash. You're paying for trash and encouraging the ad-littering business by even acknowledging it exists. If you consider advertising bad enough to pay money to get rid of it, why would you pay that money to the business putting up ads? Because you refuse to leave their client? Because you don't want to acknowledge the scary world of choosing something better? I see a lot of people say this, whe…

> Because you don't want to acknowledge the scary world of choosing something better? You could choose something better by consuming media from sources that don't engage in the malpractices you're complaining about. There's plenty of media available for purchase without advertisements or subscriptions attached. There's also plenty of media on offer for free from the people who created it. I'm not even anti-piracy, bu…

I'm not pirating media people put on YouTube. When you upload content to YouTube, you are generally taking unlicensed (or provisionally legal derivative content) and sublicensing it to YouTube for distribution and monetization. You can argue that I'm pirating Google's copy of the content, but I'm not short-changing the original uploader by refusing Google's ads. I'm exclusively ensuring that Google's business model is less profitable.

> you're being subsidized by people that are willing to pay for content they consume.

Good! Those people hate YouTube too, otherwise would be perfectly satisfied with the default service. If Google kills YouTube and forces people to finally create a better system of content ownership then humanity will be all the better for it. Google doesn't deserve this content, they are poor stewards of the service and deserve to be deposed for their lazy management of a shared resource. If we were talking about ad-free Facebook subscriptions HN would be wearing the shoe on the other foot, ripping people to shreds for supporting a demonstrably destructive business. But YouTube is different, because we all have some incentive to prop poor Google up.

I feel zero empathy contributing to "the problem" of ruining the service. This isn't the tragedy of the commons, it's the progression of corporate greed. Keep paying for YouTube Premium, tell me with any honesty your contributions are making the world better or providing a more complete user experience. You can't.

Post reply on HN